N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KALAM ULLAH, a .k.a . M aham m e d Say e dul Hoq, a .k.a . M oha m m a d Hoq, a .k.a . M oha

m m e d Hoq, Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-73874 Age n c y No. A075-653-618
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 6, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd WARDLAW

and NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ka lam Ulla h, a .k.a . M oha

m m a d Hoq, a

native and c itiz e n of B angla de sh, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA’ s) de c ision dism issing his a

ppe a l of the im

m igration judge ’ s (IJ’ s) 2016 a nd 2012 de c isions 

# FIL ED FEB 10 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).finding him

re m o v a ble and de ny ing his a

pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of
re m ova l, prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT), a nd a djustm e nt of sta tus. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1), and we de ny the pe tition in pa

rt a nd dismiss it in pa

rt. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam i lia r with the fa c t ua l history of the proc e e dings, we do not re c ount it he re . 1. The B IA c orre c t ly

de te rm ine d

tha t Pe titione r is sta

tutorily ba rre d from
a sy lum be c a

use he pre viously

file d a frivolous a sy lum

a pplic ation. Se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1158(d)(6). “ Whe the r the IJ c om plie d with theB IA’ s four proc e dura l
re quire m e nts for a

frivolousne ss finding is a que stion of la

w we re vie w de novo.” Liu v . Holde r , 640 F.3d 918, 925 (9th C ir. 2011). TheB IA prope rly c onc lude d the Pe titione r ha d knowle dge of the c onse que n c e s of filing a frivolous a

pplic ation. Pe titione r te stifie d be fore the IJ tha t he file d a

fra udule nt a p p lic ation unde r the fic titious na

m e Ka lam

Ulla h. Substa ntia l e vide n c e supports the a ge nc y ’ s findings that Pe titione r re a d a

nd unde rstood thenotic e c o nta ine d in the a sy lum a pplic ation. Pe titione r te stifie d tha

t he signe d the a sy lum

a pplic ation tha

t c onta ine d

the writte n warning, a

nd tha t he took English a s a se c ond la ngua ge in c o lle ge and c ould re a d English a t the tim e he atte nde d the a sy lum inte rvie w. Se e C

h e e ma v . Holde r , 693 F.3d 1045, 1049–50 (9th C i r. 2012) (holding tha t the writte n wa

rning on the

2a sy lum a

pplic a tion a de quate ly notifie s the a pplic ant of the c onse q

ue n c e s of filing a frivolous a

pplic a tion). 2. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Pe titione r’ s c ha l le nge s to re m ova bility be c a use he fa i le d to e xha

ust the se c la im s be fore the a ge n c y . 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(d)(1). 3. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the IJ’ s a nd the B IA’ s a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion a

nd c onse que ntly

the ir c onc lusion tha

t Pe titione r is not
e ntitle d to withholding of re m ova l a n d prote c tion unde r the C AT. Pe titione r’ s fraudule nt a

pplic a tion a

nd a ppe aranc e be fore the a sy l um offic e r, his withdra

wa l of his first a sy lum

a pplic a tion, a

nd his two volunta

ry re turns to B angla de sh support the finding tha

t he is not c re dible . B e c a use Pe titione r did not provide inde pe nde nt c orroborating e vide nc e , a nd his c la im s turne d

on his own te s tim ony , the IJ prope rly de te rm ine d t

hat Pe titione r wa s not e ntitle d to withholding of re m ova l or prote c tion unde r the C AT. 4. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of a djustm e nt of sta tus a s a m a tte r of disc re tion. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(B )(ii); Bazua-C o ta v . Gonzale s , 466 F.3d 747, 748 (9th C ir. 2006) (pe r c uriam ) (“ [T] he de c i sion to de ny Pe titione r’ s a

pplic a tion for a djustm e nt of sta tus is a disc re tiona

ry de te rm ination,
and is the re fore unre vie wa ble .” ).
3PE T IT IO N DE NIE D IN PART AND DISM ISSE D IN PART .

4